DD: How big a stink are the Chinese going to make if Yi doesn't play for them this summer? He can hide out in my house if he wants.
JD

John: He's going to play for them, the question is how long he'll be obligated to stay. Keep this in mind: Brian James told me a few months ago that the Chinese "were relieved that he got hurt" in Milwaukee late last year. "Not that they wanted him hurt," he added, "but because it would give him more rest before the Olympics." So it's pretty clear what the Chinese priorities are, and it hardly matters that it's a non-Olympic year. And the Nets will be as cooperative as is practical, because they don't want to be party in another dilemma like the one facing Wang ZhiZhi, who was left without a country after breaking his commitment to rejoin the national team after '01-02. The poor guy couldn't go back after that - couldn't even see his family, because he essentially was AWOL from army duty - and no team wants to be the cause of that. That doesn't mean Yi can't "rehab" over here a little while longer if some injury pops up, wink-wink.

DD: Vince is playing the best ball of his career and has arguably become one of the league's best. Because of his age and contract, and the fact the team is too young would you be apt to move him now? If so, how bout Ager, Vince + Najera for Wally, Hickson, West (love the guy) plus unprotected numero uno in 2010 or 2011?
Mark V

Jersey City Mark: I have come around to think that it's better than 50-50 that they'll trade Vince. Call it a hunch, call it a case of talking to too many agents and not enough GMs over the last four months, call it whatever. It will be something they wrestle with for a long time, and a deal may not materialize, but it makes sense on a lot of levels if their other building blocks (Devin, Brook, Yi) continue their improvement. Of course, they have to identify a target the same way they zeroed in on Harris when they started shopping Kidd: It has to be a young guy who has the potential to be a top-5 at his position, someone underperforming because of present circumstances ("an undervalued asset" as the business people say) because his team has too many guys at his position and won't be able to reach his full potential without a change of address. They've done well in the first two stages of the rebuilding. But even if they crack the top 8, they're not going to win the title in the next two years, and as the old saying goes, you can't be half-pregnant. Either you go for it now or lay the groundwork to attract the big fish in 2010. By February, they'll know which option is more practical, and it's likely to be "continue the rebuild," and they'll find a landing spot for VC. The one potential snag: He's still the owner's fave.

Dave D: How do you rank LeBron's options? Knicks, then Cavs, then Nets?
Chas

C-Mac: I don't rank them, because it's a silly game that I don't have to play until my editor tells me otherwise. I just know this: The Nets, who were once considered to have the inside track, are a major longshot if they don't get to Brooklyn right away. And I also heard this on good authority, albeit second-hand: Sometime this past summer, Leon Rose told Mark Cuban something along the lines of, "Nice move, genius - you traded away the point guard that LeBron wanted to play with."

Dave: The Nets are currently 5th in the league in offense (101.9 PPG after Phoenix). Nary two months ago, you and seemingly everyone else in the press couldn't proclaim enough that they would have trouble scoring 80 a night. Care to recant?
Kevin Higgins

KH: It's my fault that someone else repeats my inane miscalculations? Actually, do me a solid and produce the text - I vaguely remember mentioning something about how they would be lousy offensively if they moved Carter, but the truth is, I don't recall what I wrote two sentences ago.

Dave, do you realize that the Nets are fifth in the league in points per game? (And that they do that even though they play a relatively slow pace?) Who was that guy who predicted they would struggle for points? But seriously: How is it that they are a good offensive team? They are getting relatively little from their small forwards, they've had a bunch of injuries, and they are still a good offensive team. I really don't understand how they are doing it.
Alex

Al: What is this, a Senate judiciary committee hearing? OK, OK, I said they'd struggle for points. And by the way, they do struggle for points half the time: They still average only 88.4 ppg and shoot 39 percent in their losses, so be certain that the good defensive teams will eventually find some answers. As for why it's working, just trust your eyes - there's nothing complicated about it. It's almost like a bad Western: You have Devin - hottest gun in the West - dueling some poor, overmatched guy on the main street of Dodge while guys like Yi and Ryan and Jarvis are watching from the windows on both sides of the road. More often than not, Devin shoots the guy in the head, but if he can't get a clear shot, Vince shoots the poor slob from the roof of the saloon. Give L-Frank credit: He knew his greatest asset was his point guard's speed, and this is the best way to take advantage of it - reduce most possessions to a one-on-one challenge, play stop-me-if-you-can (and they can't), and surround him with enough shooters to support him. And when Devo needs a blow, let him hand the whip over to VC. Again, this is basically my-turn, your-turn, with two guys responsible for 37 percent of the shots and 48 percent of the points. But it can't be this way all year - sooner or later, the other 13 guys are going to have to raise their collective percentage up from 42.4. Yi is the most likely candidate: Once he becomes a consistent perimeter weapon, that will only make Devin more dangerous - defenders will have to stay glued to him, and that widens the seams. Meanwhile, here's your bottom line: If Devin's jumper is on, he cannot be stopped unless you bring a second defender to the ball - and even that should only result in a layup for somebody else one or two passes later.

Hey DD -- First off, as a Nets fan who relocated to sunny Los Angeles, I recommend the move, as most Nets games are on at 4, allowing you to watch the game and still have a night out. Very convenient. And now, a Nets question; I notice the Nets are not running a lot (read: none) of lob plays. They certainly aren't blessed with the high flyers of yore (RJ, Kenyon, et al), but with the exception of a few to Lopez (who I love, by the way), they really haven't used it. Is this a product of the change in offensive set? Does the dribble drive offense not present those opportunities? I would think with guys dribbling to the middle and drawing defenders, guys like VC, Stro and Sean (for as long as they're here) or even Yi could sneak in from the corner for a nice oop. Or is it an issue with the passer?
Brian Maillard

Mr. Duck: They average 112.3 points and hit 49 percent of their shots in their victories - how much more dazzled do you have to be? Yes, there are fewer lob opportunities in this offense, because the idea is to keep the middle clear to produce driving lanes, and back-cuts defeat that purpose. Still, you've seen a few, but many of them ad-libbed - Dooling to Brook in screen/roll, Vince to Yi at Phoenix on eye contact as Amare snoozed, Dev to Brook in transition in the same game, Simmons to VC for the win in Toronto on a side-out-of-bounds - and as they get more used to each other, you'll see more - most of them involving Yi, is my guess.

DD: For more than a year, we have heard and read about "chemistry issues" with the Nets, without a real, detailed look at what was going on. We have read sporadic reports, things like RJ didn't think he and VC were a good match, that Kidd didn't think RJ should have undergone ankle surgery two years ago, that some of the Nets thought Krstic should have tried harder, etc. But really, aren't those things typical of a veteran team? Isn't it time for a "now-it-can-be-told!" discussion or are you holding back til December 19, you cad? How soon before we see a spate of stories on 1) VC not being a bum, a malingerer, a soulless superstar but someone who has been "rejuvenated" by this young Nets team and 2) the underappreciated genius of Lawrence Frank? Shouldn't writers who trashed these guys, particularly Carter, be forbidden to pen these stories without an admission they were wrong in the first place? Sportswriters are nearly as bad as political writers in this regard.
R. Windrem

Bobbo: Those sporadic reports you cited above are all airballs, and I assume you read them from an out-of-town typist who heard them from some player's fifth cousin. The chemistry issue didn't come up until late November, a week or two before the migraine, when a certain player's wife was not only having her husband tailed by a private detective (no reward for a correct guess), she also had one of his teammates (pick a bachelor, the kind who might get said husband into trouble) tailed for two weeks while leaking phony reports about his sexuality on the internet. This was all reported already, and trust me, it's hard to type this stuff with one hand while you're pinching your nose with the other. If you're looking for anything more salacious than that, sorry - opted out of that stuff years ago.

Dear David: Is Howard Eisley an assistant coach? Everytime I look at the Nets bench during home games, I see Eisley. He is not, however, listed as a Nets assistant coach on the Nets website. I am guessing he is an intern coach similar to Kerry Kittles' title two years ago, but I would feel more comfortable about my assumption by your confirmation.
Kelvin Tsang

KT: He's pretty much this year's Kittles, yes - except Howard travels more. He doesn't have a specific title, but he is a "coaching associate" - a player development kind of guy -- and by all accounts, he's very good at it. Best part, at least from the team's point of view, is that he does it for free.

Dave - Longtime Stanford fan here. The Nets are really fortunate to have Brook. I could not believe he dropped to #10 on draft day. Because of Stanford's style of play, he was perceived to be mechanical and not very athletic (which caused some to think he would have trouble producing against the more "athletic" NBAers). For those who saw Brook as a prep... he was very athletic, especially when pared with a good point guard. The dude is still raw but has a ton of upside.
Edgar Quilala

EQ: Again, I think his development will be the most interesting thing to watch this season, because he seems to show us something different every night. And the key to his development will be physical - he's not exactly a quick-jumper right now, but a year with Rich Dalatri is going to benefit him for a lifetime.

Dave, Any room on the Nets coaching staff for my boyhood idol, Mike O'Koren? Do you think he was even considered for EJ's head job?
Eric

Big E: No vacancies at the inn presently, but you don't have to worry about Mike - he'll find his way back onto someone's staff this summer. As for the Wiz job, that was never going to happen - he was so closely intertwined with Eddie (even gave him the title of "associate head coach") that Grunfeld didn't want to leave any doubt: He didn't hire Jordan, he didn't hire O'Koren, he wanted Thibodeau as the head-coach-in-waiting in June of '07 (Tom saw through that and got the hell out after a few days, a credit to his integrity), and now Ernie's going to have to get into a bidding war for him next summer.

Dear Sir: As per your instructions, the Home Office has branched out into other forms of media and is now producing comics to attract a younger audience. The only problem is continued interference from The Professor, who insisted that it must involve hosiery and wide belts. Submitted for your approval.